Um… no one said that. At least I didn’t.
Which was the specific point of the article. Again, the majority of one’s he points to is 19th/20th century. There is one 16th century which is a drawing of Indians which are claimed to be Irish.
3 Likes
Which makes the analogy to slavery even less appropriate. They dealt with the same conditions faced by all labor in factories and agriculture at the time. Underpaid, overworked, organized labor on the rise, safety regulations beginning to be recognized…
1 Like
I agree. Where haven’t I agreed? Or are you just agreeing with me?
2 Likes
What part of the world did Irish laborers have life spans measured in months?
3 Likes
A temporary form, perhaps. But it was not chattel slavery.
What is the value for you in insisting that indentured servitude is also slavery?
I ask because most people already know the difference between the two terms. They also know that while indentured servitude was often horrible, and sometimes people were even forced into it, it was not nearly as horrific in effects (both immediate and generationally, through to today) as chattel slavery.
1 Like
I am agreeing and adding to it. 
2 Likes
Okay… thanks!
2 Likes
I think we can point out that early on there was a fair amount of categorical instability at the time, but Bacon’s rebellion put a stop to that.
2 Likes
The view from Ireland is different
The unfree Irish in the Caribbean were indentured servants, not slaves
It’s a myth there were ‘Irish slaves’ in Barbados. As difficult as white servants’ experiences were, enslaved Africans were the people treated as livestock.
9 Likes
The more people defend the idea that Irish laborers had it as bad as actual slaves, I’m beginning to see the whole thing as white hyperbole.
“In my day, we were treated as slaves I tell you…as slaves!”
3 Likes
i am not diminishing. irish indentured servants didn’t have their children reared as property. it isn’t a competition, and as i said before:
5 Likes
12 Likes
Um… no one said that. At least I didn’t.
@japhroaig said it.
Which was the specific point of the article.
I know it was the point of the article, and it’s a good point. I’m not sure why you keep bringing this up, we’re in agreement!
Again, the majority of one’s he points to is 19th/20th century. There is one 16th century which is a drawing of Indians which are claimed to be Irish.
The articles also talk about the East India Company (16th century on), another quote referring to the 17th century, the third part deals with the 17th century as well, as does the fourth and fifth parts (the latter ones go into good detail actually, worth reading).
1 Like
He did?
Do you mean this? I don’t think he’s making that comparision, actually. He’s making a comment about modern day forms of human trafficking (again, not to say it’s not bad), not legal nannies.
Yay!
But in that case we’re also talking British empire, and their hold on the Americas was always tenuous. But again, indentured servitude and the use of convict labor were not quite the same thing here.
1 Like
You said:
No Irish laborers dealt with such conditions.
This is not true, it’s also not true that they had it as bad as African slaves in general, and certainly not the laughable claim that they had it worse.
1 Like
He said that in a reply to my post about ‘forced indentured servitude’, it’s not related.
eh, perhaps i was making a point that didn’t need to be made. all i was trying to say is indentured servitude still exists in manners not unlike 17th century america.
probably a non-sequitur.
3 Likes
African slaves certainly had it worse than Irish laborers. Especially those under the murderous conditions of sugar farming. There is no equivalent of such conditions for Irish laborers.
1 Like
OMG. I’ve never seen so many people in agreement arguing with each over assertions that were never made.
15 Likes
